Terminator Salvation

[Azure Prower]

Release date(s):
May 21, 2009 (US)
June 3, 2009 (UK)
June 4, 2009 (Aus)

Now that it is out in the US for 3 days now. I'm wondering if any one has gone to see it and their thoughts on the movie?

[Admiral_C]

Seen it. Its decent. It would have been a lot better if the trailers were less revealing.

[Petara]

Not bad, but not that great either. Wasn't lacking on the action at all and the CGI, for the most part, was excellent. Gotta agree with Admiral. There were some things that would have been much better left out of the trailers...

I thought Marcus was a great character and Worthington did wonderful.

On another note, what was Kommon's character's name and wtf did he did do, if anything other than have like 4 generic lines? Go McG:tomatoface:

I'd give it a solid grade C

[Atomicfog]

The action was far above average, and the environments, scenery, and cinematography were great. However, most of the characters didn't have much depth, and the plot was OK, but parts of it were really dumb.


My three biggest qualms:

WHY WAS KYLE REESE SAID TO BE #1 ON THE MACHINES TERMINATION AGENDA AND THEN THEY GET HIM AND DO NOT KILL HIM TO STOP JOHN CONNER OR DO ANYTHING WITH HIM AT ALL?

We see a scene where John Conner is grabbed by the neck by a certain special Terminator but he is just fine since apparently Terminators don't know how to kill people, except a minute later he locates Marcus's heart and promptly punches him in it effectively killing him, at least temporarily...

Terminators or humanoid robots made of metal do not float...

[The Joker]

You know, I quite enjoyed this movie. It's not a masterpiece, but it's a damn entertaining ride. Don;t really get why it got all the hate from the critics.

[Azure Prower]

Haven't seen the newest movie, but going from the last movie and Sarah Connor Chronicles. The terminators don't have the heartlessness and narrow mind set as the first two movies had. Now you have terminators defecting just because and the actual terminators that are meant to be bad going soft.

If it were like the orginal movies. Terminator sees human/target. Bang. Dead. Mission successful. (question is, what is its purpose once its mission is complete?)

[Lotd2242]

I came out of this movie with the same feelings I had about Star Trek. It's just another generic action SciFi movie that has only a passing resemblence to its franchise. It's enough to keep you from being bored and generally looks good, but beyond that there's just nothing there.

Hell John Connor is arguably not even the main character given how much more often Marcus is on screen. It's also full of inconsistencies and silly plot holes too, where Terminators apparently choose not to kill their targets. And did we really need the Borg Queen scene?

Overall it was just another "meh" movie.

[JH Sounds]

I had a lol from the fact that John apparently remembered the deux ex machina from T3. Other than that, Bale's iteration was very much bleh. Worthington saved the movie, and I hope the sequel shifts to Reese in his absence.

[JCvgluvr]

*SPOILERS*

As a Terminator sequel/prequel, it was sub-par at best. I was very disappointed in the characters and plot. The love plot between Marcus and the pilot was tacked on and not even slightly believable/necessary. As said before, the first T-800 is quite stupid for not finishing John off quickly. If it was to do it's job of *ahem* termination effectively, why didn't it just pick John up and squash his freakin' skull?! What was the point of bashing him across the room and slowly pursuing him?!

Not only that, but Skynet in general is quite naive. So, they make a cyborg infiltrator (Marcus), yet don't account for the off-chance that he might choose to disobey their orders?! Couldn't they simply control his mind with a chip or something? How stupid can a self-aware mechanical grim reaper be?!

All those complaints aside, this movie is great when you turn your mind and see it as only an action movie. Better than average action scenes and great soundwork! And you know what?

Terminators still look fricking cool...

[berrypievision]

I agree with the guy who says it's like the new Star Trek film, a subpar film just trying to milk off a nearly dead franchise. The first two terminator films were excellent films that didn't need more sequels, and well, the other terminator films stink, and don't get me started with pathetic excuse of a tv series, I actually watched the pilot season. Though I don't understand how Star Trek is getting praise while this is getting shit thrown at it.

[Toadofsky]

You know, I quite enjoyed this movie. It's not a masterpiece, but it's a damn entertaining ride. Don;t really get why it got all the hate from the critics.

Haven't read much from the critics, though I've heard it's had a kind of "meh" feeling.

It wasn't a bad film at all, good action, great acting from each person involved. I think that the storyline is probably not the strongest thing in the film, although I have heard that they're making this into a trilogy, so, I'd say that maybe the storyline will get a bit more depth as it goes along.

[Sinewav]

Killer robots killed stuff. Heroes killed the robots. Stuff blew up.

Pretty much exactly what I was looking for in a Terminator sequel.

[Cerrax]

I haven't seen this yet, but I do have to agree that giving the Terminators more personality and morality bothers me. I liked it when the people were the focus of the story and the Terminators were more or less just a plot device and/or one-dimensional antagonist/protector. I feel like T2 went far enough into the "Terminators have a conscience" idea. T3 touched on it again (and honestly T3 was just a remake of T2 with an older John Connor and Judgement Day actually happening). The TV show really bothers me because it completely dismantles the cannon established in T3. Plus as hot and awesome as Summer Glau is, I hate her character (Cameron) and that comes back to the whole "Terminators have personality/conscience" thing.

I just hope it isn't as bad as T3. From what I have read it sounds like it isn't that bad, but I'll probably have issues with the whole "Terminator thinks he's human" idea.

[Azure Prower]

Though I don't understand how Star Trek is getting praise while this is getting shit thrown at it.

Apart from the new Star Trek movie making it "cool" to like Star Trek while the new Terminator movie making the series appear shit. No. I don't understand why the two movies are getting polar opposite reviews. Not at all.

...

Any how. What made the original Terminator movies was it was deep and meaningful with a sense of terror. The terminators were frightening and the plot all came together with a moral behind it. Heck, there was even a sex scene with a purpose other than to simply jack off to.

That's what the new movies lack. Substance.

The latest movies appear to be just senseless action. The Terminators are cuddly care bears with guns and John Connor is a douche.

[relyanCe]

Killer robots killed stuff. Heroes killed the robots. Stuff blew up.

Pretty much exactly what I was looking for in a Terminator sequel.

Someone give Sinewav a medal

Honestly people it's Terminator it's guns and bad guys and bangs and booms what more do you want?

[Cerrax]

Someone give Sinewav a medal

Honestly people it's Terminator it's guns and bad guys and bangs and booms what more do you want?

That seems to be your answer for every movie. As far as the action and stuff goes I'm sure it was great, but its very frustrating when you've grown to love certain characters and aspects of a franchise and then they throw it all away for no good reason.

I didn't think they could get any worse than Nick Stahl to play John Connor, but I was wrong. I really do not enjoy Christian Bale. I suffer through him in the Batman movies because I enjoy Christopher Nolan very much. But I think he was the wrong choice for John Connor. I'll have to see the movie for myself, but just from the trailers he doesn't seem like a very good John Connor. They should have gotten Edward Furlong to do it again. Shame that he was all fucked up when they shot T3. It would have been really awesome to see the same actor grow into the role. Would have been excellent for continuity too.

Like I've said, I'll have to see it before I judge it, but considering the mediocre quality of the other movies I've seen so far this summer, I'm not expecting much.

[Native Jovian]

That seems to be your answer for every movie.
Well it is a pretty good answer.

[JH Sounds]

This explains a lot. (http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/19577/1/EXCLUSIVE-WHAT-WENT-WRONG-WITH-TERMINATOR-SALVATION/Page1.html)

Basically, Connor's presence was originally meant to be the equivalent of a cameo and the focus was on Wright and Reese. Thanks, Bale for diluting a interesting premise.

[relyanCe]

That seems to be your answer for every movie.

That's usually my general answer for summer action flicks as a whole. I don't normally get into details unless asked, but I'll go ahead and talk more about my view of the movie.

Christian Bale plays John Connor very differently than Connor's other actors did mostly because the writers were going for a much different John Connor. In T4 he's a jaded war veteran who has nearly lost hope in the future he has come to expect, as opposed to the more hopeful version of his childhood and adolescent portrayals, and Bale does a good job at this role as far as I'm concerned.

Also, nothing in this movie really serves to "humanize" the machines. Marcus Wright is basically the 6 million dollar man and by no means a machine, as referenced in John Connor's wife's little monologue at the end of the movie.

[Sinewav]

I'll agree with most of the stuff said here about Bale. I loved him as Batman, but he's really not all that great in this movie. All he seems to do is his typical whisper/yell stuff.

Wright was an interesting character though. Sure the whole "what is human?" question is a cliche, but it's a good cliche. The movie probably would have been a lot cooler if it had just been about him. Whenever Connor was on the screen, I found myself wishing it would get back to Wright's storyline.


Anyone know how they got Arnie at the end of the movie? I looked for his name in the credits, but never saw it. Did they get a body double and superimpose his face or something?

[Bleck]

Though I don't understand how Star Trek is getting praise while this is getting shit thrown at it.

star trek was a good movie

terminator 4 is a bad movie

that is all

[JH Sounds]

It was actually a CGI head, which was done by scanning a mold from T1's production.

[Toadofsky]

WHY WAS KYLE REESE SAID TO BE #1 ON THE MACHINES TERMINATION AGENDA AND THEN THEY GET HIM AND DO NOT KILL HIM TO STOP JOHN CONNER OR DO ANYTHING WITH HIM AT ALL?

We see a scene where John Conner is grabbed by the neck by a certain special Terminator but he is just fine since apparently Terminators don't know how to kill people, except a minute later he locates Marcus's heart and promptly punches him in it effectively killing him, at least temporarily...

Terminators or humanoid robots made of metal do not float...

That terminator in particular was probably fresh out of the box, so to speak...

As for floating, dude, c'mon, this is a movie about an apocalyptic future with robots, and flying robots at that, so I don't think we can apply too much logic into this... :razz:

Anyways, as to the plot, here's what I think...

POTENTIAL SPOILERS.....




Skynet was searching for Kyle Reese and Connor, and had at least several options before it...

1. Make half human, half terminators, in that test, they could see how far they could make a terminator human, which in part, having human minds. And use that to lure Connor and or Reese into a trap. After all, Skynet knows the future has been altered, and is finding different ways to wipe out humans.

2. Keep Kyle Reese alive for the time, as a means to lure John Connor out, Connor try to rescue him, and then kill them both.

3. Do the same thing they did with Marcus, replicate tissue, put Reeses' mind into a terminator frame, and kill John Connor upon first meeting. They could also send the Reese terminator back into the past, and kill Sarah Connor as well, just to make sure that humans have no hope.


Those are at least my thoughts...

And did anybody notice how they played the some of the same song that young John Connor listened to when he was in a foster home? The Guns N Roses song I mean?

[Lotd2242]

That terminator in particular was probably fresh out of the box, so to speak...


Wouldn't that make it that much more likely to insta-kill him, given that its most basic programming would be to kill anything human?

[Toadofsky]

Wouldn't that make it that much more likely to insta-kill him, given that its most basic programming would be to kill anything human?

Oh I don't know, I figured that it didn't kill Marcus because more than likely, it knew he was a terminator, until Marcus attacked it, then it probably figured it was a defected one, and figured it should kill him to stop messing with his mission.

I'm not one for logic with films anymore, I mean, I just watched The Spirit, and enjoyed it thoroughly :tomatoface:. I know there are ones that always have to find some sort of logic in movies, granted, I like it with SOME forms of movies, like crime/mystery movies, especially if there set in modern day, or even in 50's eras, you get the idea.

I liked the film, wasn't bad, wasn't the worst film I'd ever seen either (Santa Claus vs. The Martians is right up there, but is only saved by Mystery Science Theater riffing it). Was there plot holes, or things that didn't really add up? Of course, but hey, I think they did alright with what they went with at least.

And what's with everyone complaining about Christian Bale/The Dark Knight? Sure, he was similar to his Bruce Wayne act, but well, there's some difference in those two characters, personality wise, but not much, at least to me that is. But now all of a sudden The Dark Knight haters are coming out of the woodwork, "ohh, now it's 'cool' to hate that movie now, I better agree with the bloggers!" (Of course, if you didn't like Dark Knight for VALID reasons, that's fair enough with me)

[Lotd2242]

Oh I don't know, I figured that it didn't kill Marcus because more than likely, it knew he was a terminator, until Marcus attacked it, then it probably figured it was a defected one, and figured it should kill him to stop messing with his mission.


That doesn't explain John Connor. It walks past a gatling gun, grabs him by the throat, and rather than just crushing his puny neck, throws him against a wall.


I'm not one for logic with films anymore, I mean, I just watched The Spirit, and enjoyed it thoroughly :tomatoface:. I know there are ones that always have to find some sort of logic in movies, granted, I like it with SOME forms of movies, like crime/mystery movies, especially if there set in modern day, or even in 50's eras, you get the idea.


I don't demand movies always follow logic. I enjoyed the hell out of Crank and Crank 2 and neither of those movies make any sense whatsoever logically, but they're funny and more importantly they don't try to BS the viewer. They are up-front about the fact they're making a movie that is ridiculous and would never work in reality. They're also consistent in that fact whereas a Terminator or a Dark Knight will pretend to be in the "real world" one minute and then toss that convention the second it becomes inconvenient.


I liked the film, wasn't bad, wasn't the worst film I'd ever seen either (Santa Claus vs. The Martians is right up there, but is only saved by Mystery Science Theater riffing it). Was there plot holes, or things that didn't really add up? Of course, but hey, I think they did alright with what they went with at least.

And what's with everyone complaining about Christian Bale/The Dark Knight? Sure, he was similar to his Bruce Wayne act, but well, there's some difference in those two characters, personality wise, but not much, at least to me that is. But now all of a sudden The Dark Knight haters are coming out of the woodwork, "ohh, now it's 'cool' to hate that movie now, I better agree with the bloggers!" (Of course, if you didn't like Dark Knight for VALID reasons, that's fair enough with me)

I actually liked Terminator more than Star Trek, neither of which were the Worst Film Evah. It's just they're such generic nonsense that would be utterly forgettable without the brand name stamped on top.

As for the Dark Knight, the only thing that saved that movie from mediocrity was Ledger's Joker. I think people are slowly coming around to the idea that it was a over-hyped as they watch it repeatedly and begin to see all the flaws come to light as the adrenaline rush the action produces begins to fade.

[Moseph]

Cool. So now we have TWO movies that just continue to beat on the same old plot points that Terminator 2 supposedly resolved. We already know this story, and it was already stale in T3. Apologists for T3 and Salvation can claim that the the plot is still alive because the future has changed from what was portrayed in the first two movies ("this isn't the future my mother warned me about") -- but it sure hasn't changed much. And as far as the large-scale plot is concerned, almost nothing happens in Salvation. They find Reese, and that's about it. Besides that, it's back to status quo by the end of the movie. It's like they're twiddling their thumbs, delaying the inevitable time travel bits, because after that they'd actually have to come up with a new storyline. One critic (I forget who) compared Salvation to a TV show episode; I agree with him.

If the characters were good, that might make up for the stagnant setting and story, but they're not. There are no Sarah Connor-caliber people here, just bland soldier types. Marcus and Reese are the only ones who are even remotely interesting, and much of Reese's appeal comes simply from the similarities/contrasts with the Reese from T1.

Also, time travel seems a lot sillier at this point in the story arc. What exactly is going to happen if Reese dies? Will Connor fade into nothing, McFly-like? Will it simply create another alternate reality, separate from this one, where the machines win? These questions, although they've always been present, didn't matter in T1, because the narrative wasn't focused on the future. By the time Salvation is underway, though, the canonical narrative has finally reached the future without answering the questions about how failure to enact the past would affect the continuing story. It becomes another mindless plot point that just needs to be covered because, hey, we need to do all the things that T1/T2 predicted, because we threw out the make-your-own-future paradigm long ago.

[Kiyosuki]

I think it's kind of amusing that the film closed with the famous no fate but what we make motto, all things considering since the third film.

[Sinewav]

I think it's kind of amusing that the film closed with the famous no fate but what we make motto, all things considering since the third film.

I didn't even bother with the third one. Is that bad?

[berrypievision]

[Apart from the new Star Trek movie making it "cool" to like Star Trek]

Really, it's cool to like mediocre garbage? Oh wait, duh. I mean, Family Guy is culturally beloved, so why the hell am I asking that? Star Trek 11 is a horrible movie, and just a copy of previous trek films. Its no better than Terminator 4. As that other user said, they are both sub-par.

[Secret Agent Man]

Also, time travel seems a lot sillier at this point in the story arc. What exactly is going to happen if Reese dies? Will Connor fade into nothing, McFly-like? Will it simply create another alternate reality, separate from this one, where the machines win?
Don't forget, Cyberdyne first got the Terminator-like technology from the first Terminator sent back to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor. No Terminator in the past = no Cyberdyne = no Skynet = no war. (Of course, that in itself is a time paradox.)

[Native Jovian]

Really, it's cool to like mediocre garbage? Oh wait, duh. I mean, Family Guy is culturally beloved, so why the hell am I asking that?
Ahahahahahaha.

I'm Native Jovian and I approve of this message.

[Moseph]

Don't forget, Cyberdyne first got the Terminator-like technology from the first Terminator sent back to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor. No Terminator in the past = no Cyberdyne = no Skynet = no war. (Of course, that in itself is a time paradox.)
Yeah, but it's not even the paradoxes that I really have a problem with. It's the fact that, at this point in the story, we're supposed to be horrified by the prospect of Reese being killed, but we don't even know what his death would signify. If they would just tell us how time traveling or not time traveling would actually affect the present story (no effect? Connor disappears? everyone disappears? giant purple bunnies? what?), I'd be okay with it, paradoxes and all, because it would explain why Reese is an important character.

I guess it bugs me so much because I'd been viewing the Terminator movies with an alternate universes theory, and under this theory, Reese's death would screw up someone else's reality, but not the reality that the story deals with, so it would seem completely inconsequential.

[Eckerson]

Yeah, but it's not even the paradoxes that I really have a problem with. It's the fact that, at this point in the story, we're supposed to be horrified by the prospect of Reese being killed, but we don't even know what his death would signify. If they would just tell us how time traveling or not time traveling would actually affect the present story (no effect? Connor disappears? everyone disappears? giant purple bunnies? what?), I'd be okay with it, paradoxes and all, because it would explain why Reese is an important character.

I guess it bugs me so much because I'd been viewing the Terminator movies with an alternate universes theory, and under this theory, Reese's death would screw up someone else's reality, but not the reality that the story deals with, so it would seem completely inconsequential.

I was under the impression that Connor was running under a "worse case scenario" mindset when it came to keeping Reese alive. I don't think any of the characters really know what would happen if Reese was killed. I believe that extended to Skynet, which would explain why Skynet wanted to kill both of Reese and Connor.

So Connor was concerned that it would undo everything for the humans, including his existance, and Skynet was concerned that it would not impact their current timeline at all, only an alternate one.

I don't think that they could have explained outright what the impact would be, because if it was known in the movie, then how one side acted would not make as much sense (although I doubt that much thought went into it). Connor would still probably want to protect Reese even if it would only affect a different timeline to protect that one as well, but if it was known that killing Reese would undo everything I would think Skynet would have just killed Reese and been done with it.

[Bleck]

Really, it's cool to like mediocre garbage? Oh wait, duh. I mean, Family Guy is culturally beloved, so why the hell am I asking that? Star Trek 11 is a horrible movie, and just a copy of previous trek films. Its no better than Terminator 4. As that other user said, they are both sub-par.

the best thing about these threads is how they are always full of people who have no idea what they are talking about

[Moseph]

I was under the impression that Connor was running under a "worse case scenario" mindset when it came to keeping Reese alive. I don't think any of the characters really know what would happen if Reese was killed. I believe that extended to Skynet, which would explain why Skynet wanted to kill both of Reese and Connor.

So Connor was concerned that it would undo everything for the humans, including his existance, and Skynet was concerned that it would not impact their current timeline at all, only an alternate one.

I don't think that they could have explained outright what the impact would be, because if it was known in the movie, then how one side acted would not make as much sense (although I doubt that much thought went into it). Connor would still probably want to protect Reese even if it would only affect a different timeline to protect that one as well, but if it was known that killing Reese would undo everything I would think Skynet would have just killed Reese and been done with it.
And that brings us back to the lousy script. It would actually have been pretty cool to have a scene between John and Kate wherein John confides that he has no idea what's going on, no idea what will happen if he lets Reese die, and expresses worry that he's allowing his father-son love for Reese to distract him from the hard choices of military leadership -- it could easily have been worked into the scene(s) about his uncertainty regarding Marcus. This would have helped to clarify Reese's role, to humanize John, and to actually portray a relationship between John and Kate.

[relyanCe]

the best thing about these threads is how they are always full of people who have no idea what they are talking about

QF-fricken-T.

[Kiyosuki]

I didn't even bother with the third one. Is that bad?

Well...it explains how Judgement Day happened anyways, just later. But other than that not really.

It basically took a crap on the you make your own fate theme of the second film. I've heard some people rationalize that Judgement Day -was- the fate we made for ourselves, it's all valid cause it's interpretation but I still personally feel like it was pretty exceedingly unecessary to go past the second film.

I thought Salvation was middle of the road, it wasn't great but it was alright I guess... certainly better than 3 imo, but it still has that overencompassing feeling of "did we really need to go to the future?" for me. It's a summer explosion film though, so it is what it is. It lacks the central character dynamic that made the first two a -little- more than action sci fi flicks, but the war at least looks sorta cool I guess. (though the third's disastrous attempt to recreate that was its main fall imo so maybe abandoning that was for the best.)

I think if they concentrated more on John's relations to Marcus, and actually tried to keep Marcus' status as a hybrid a surprise it would have turned out a bit better. It seems like the film was making his true nature out to be this big surprise in the story...but the trailer basically gave it away months before the film came out, and the beginning of the film's pretty clear about it too. Seems totally contradictory to me. If you're gonna make something a revelation, make it a revelation I say.

[Lotd2242]

Don't forget, Cyberdyne first got the Terminator-like technology from the first Terminator sent back to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor. No Terminator in the past = no Cyberdyne = no Skynet = no war. (Of course, that in itself is a time paradox.)

It gets worse. Skynet only exists because it went back in time to stop John Connor from existing. But John Connor exists only because Skynet went back in time to stop John Connor from existing.


I was under the impression that Connor was running under a "worse case scenario" mindset when it came to keeping Reese alive. I don't think any of the characters really know what would happen if Reese was killed. I believe that extended to Skynet, which would explain why Skynet wanted to kill both of Reese and Connor.


My problem is that I don't know where Skynet got the idea that Kyle Reese was going to time travel. I could see it being aware of John Connor by way of him constantly warring with them. Is that a function of the 3rd movie's terminator essentially creating Skynet?

[Eckerson]

And that brings us back to the lousy script. It would actually have been pretty cool to have a scene between John and Kate wherein John confides that he has no idea what's going on, no idea what will happen if he lets Reese die, and expresses worry that he's allowing his father-son love for Reese to distract him from the hard choices of military leadership -- it could easily have been worked into the scene(s) about his uncertainty regarding Marcus. This would have helped to clarify Reese's role, to humanize John, and to actually portray a relationship between John and Kate.

I completely agree with that. If their intent was to have the characters not know, it would have been nice to have known. I actually prefer that over them knowing what will happen to the timeline.

My problem is that I don't know where Skynet got the idea that Kyle Reese was going to time travel. I could see it being aware of John Connor by way of him constantly warring with them. Is that a function of the 3rd movie's terminator essentially creating Skynet?

On that note, why was Kyle Reese a priority target at all? It could be that the TX of the third movie gave Skynet what the future Skynet had known (Kyle Reese was sent back after the T-800, a reprogrammed T-800 was sent back after the T-1000, etc). That would have given Skynet a HUGE tactical advantage because Connor is running under advice from his mom about the original war. For all we know, this version of Skynet could decide that it won't create time travel, or that it will try to send a larger force back. That could even be the basis of a movie. The resistance has to stop Skynet from sending a large force back to kill Sarah Connor and manage to stop all but a single T-800, so they shove Kyle in after it before destroying the installation.

A lot of this stuff would have been nice have mentioned. It could be that they wanted to leave themselves room for future movies and explain it then, but I'm sure that was not the case.

Despite these issues, I still liked the movie, I'll still buy the DVD, and I will most likely see the next one they make.

[Moseph]

For all we know, this version of Skynet could decide that it won't create time travel, or that it will try to send a larger force back. That could even be the basis of a movie. The resistance has to stop Skynet from sending a large force back to kill Sarah Connor and manage to stop all but a single T-800, so they shove Kyle in after it before destroying the installation.

That would probably make a pretty good movie.

Or if they wanted to get all Back to the Future II on us, Skynet could succeed in sending several Terminators back to 1984, and Kyle plus some others (Blair?) go back, and we basically get a re-imagining of the first movie but with more firepower.

EDIT: And with the knowledge that Judgment Day will occur no matter what they do, Sarah Connor and any other survivors turn their efforts toward preparation rather than prevention.
Then Judgment Day happens.
And because they were expecting it, the following war is much shorter, and they beat the machines for good.
The series ends with John, Sarah, and Kyle standing on a cliff overlooking the rebuilding of LA, and one of them gives the now familiar monologue about making your own future.

[relyanCe]

That would probably make a pretty good movie.

Or if they wanted to get all Back to the Future II on us, Skynet could succeed in sending several Terminators back to 1984, and Kyle plus some others (Blair?) go back, and we basically get a re-imagining of the first movie but with more firepower.

EDIT: And with the knowledge that Judgment Day will occur no matter what they do, Sarah Connor and any other survivors turn their efforts toward preparation rather than prevention.
Then Judgment Day happens.
And because they were expecting it, the following war is much shorter, and they beat the machines for good.
The series ends with John, Sarah, and Kyle standing on a cliff overlooking the rebuilding of LA, and one of them gives the now familiar monologue about making your own future.

Somebody make a script NAO

[Lotd2242]

A lot of this stuff would have been nice have mentioned. It could be that they wanted to leave themselves room for future movies and explain it then, but I'm sure that was not the case.


Same problem Star Trek had. They left out information to the prequel comic and deleted scenes that would have easily closed plot holes.